Some things make me throw up in my mouth a little:
Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?
PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.
I grow weary of these debates about what constitutes terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic used by disempowered people to try to change the political decisions of empowered people. The vast majority of the time, terrorism doesn’t work. Sometimes, it does. On the whole, terrorism, as a tactic, is both ineffective and immoral…if not always without some understandable rationale. Usually, there is some underlying grievance that fuels an act of terrorism. In Northern Ireland, it was the treatment of Catholics. In Spain, it was the desire for Basque autonomy. In Israel, it is the occupation of Arab lands (including, for some, the very existence of Israel on formerly Egyptian or Jordanian or Syrian land). [Ed. note: this was sloppy. To keep the timeline right, I should have said Ottoman land] Terrorism has not led to tangible gains for Palestinians or the Basque people, but it can be argued that it won the IRA concessions out of the United Kingdom and that it drove France out of Algeria. Regardless of effectiveness, any terrorism that kills innocent victims is morally repugnant. That remains true even when the terrorism is in response to morally repugnant behavior. What has proven more effective and more morally correct, is the kind of resistance shown by Gandhi, King Jr., and Mandela.
When William Ayers and the Weather Underground launched their spree of domestic terrorism, they were reacting to what they considered morally repugnant behavior in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia by the U.S. Government. They felt powerless to stop the war machine and they resorted to acts of terror and retribution. In spite of this, they were usually careful to give advanced warning and to attack at times when buildings would be empty. But they made a few exceptions that cost some people their lives. They murdered some people and plotted to murder more. And, their goal was terror, to terrify people into changing our foreign policy. In this, they were no different from the 9/11 hijackers, and they should be rightfully condemned for their actions.
But, let’s consider the case of an abortion clinic bomber. What are they trying to do? In their mind, they are responding to something they consider morally repugnant, and over which they feel powerless to effect change. They hope to terrify abortion providers into abandoning their practice. They are terrorists, too.
You’ll always find a certain segment of the population that has sympathy for terror. What happens is that some people share the terrorists’ grievance (over Palestine, over U.S. foreign policy, over French foreign policy, over British foreign policy, over Spanish domestic policy, over abortion). And they want change. And they share with the terrorists a sense of frustration and powerlessness which leads them to make excuses for acts of terror. We can sympathize with these people to a degree, but when it extends to countenancing murder, we have to draw the line and condemn their behavior. That is what Sarah Palin failed to do in this interview. And it makes her no better than the William Ayers she so likes to condemn.
She hasn’t the mental ability to separate the pursuit, ending abortions, from the tactic, bombings. She has been swallowed entirely by her extreme ideology to the extent that she can’t express what most would consider to be normal outrage.
There are two degrees of disgust with an act of terror.
Palin isn’t even clear that she’s in column two.
Abhor tactics?
Hah!
Why does she wear a polar bear pin? Not because she likes bears!!! It is the symbol of the Alaska Independence Party… a group that recommends that its supporters got “underground” to further the aims of the movement.
Her hubby was a card-carrying member for ages.
She addressed their convention this year.
Terrorists.
Vogler, the founder of the party, was murdered buying plastic explosives on the black market from West, a fellow member and former aide of his. This happened at the same time that the Unabomber was mailing parcels. The AKIP supported McVeigh and the separatist militias in the deep south. They were using Iran to get into a UN conference to push their goal. Nice people? Terrorists!
The only terrorist Palin descries is one who attacks DC? Everybody else, including her buddies at AKIP, is merely a freedom fighter or aggrieved person? If you strike at a military facility you are a terrorist, but if you strike at a doctor’s office or financial center or college or shipping mall or polling place, you are not? Doesn’t she have this backward?
Why don’t we strike this whole terrorist nonsense, since nobody wins a war-against-a-noun, and call it all criminal activity. Plain and simple. And if you consort with criminals, such as AKIP or IRA or PKK, you are equally guilty of criminal conspiracy.
To Sarah Palin gay people are terrorists because they’re trying to destroy her marriage.
I wonder:
‘In Israel, it is the occupation of Arab lands (including, for some, the very existence of Israel on formerly Egyptian or Jordanian or Syrian land).’
No Palestinian lands?
Prior to the creation of Israel, there was no political entity called Palestine. It was just the name for a region.
Prior to the 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt, the West Bank was part of Jordan (Transjordan), and the Golan Heights were part of Syria.
to be more accurate, the Brits created an administrative zone called Palestine.
But they did it on formerly Ottoman controlled land.
Excellent point to remind folks of, and one that goes a long way to figuring out the special relationship between Israel, Turkey and the US and the barely ‘subliminal’ expectation of those parties that they will be divvying up the region at some point.
If Turkey and Israel could split Syria and Lebanon between them (and, and, and), they would both be quite happy…
Hmm. The above makes the concept of ‘pre-1967’ boarders a lot more ambiguous, no? You’d think the Israeli hawks could bait and switch a bit on that topic:
“OK! I’ll give you pre-1967 boarders! 1967 BC, that is.”
well, I think that’s all water under the bridge.
There is a Palestinian state now, of sorts, and there is definitely a Palestinian people. And the Turks might occupy northern Iraq, but there is no going back to the Ottoman Empire.
It’s all about shared goals, not achieving them… Greater Israel is not to be laughed off – it’s a mission of powerful elements of Israeli society. To pretend borders in the region won’t be redrawn again and again – and soon – is to deny history and the stated goals of most of the players.
“There is a Palestinian state now, of sorts“
No, there is not. Not at all, not even remotely. There is a constantly shrinking and increasingly isolated set of bantustans in which Palestinian people are miraculously hanging on and surviving under a decades-long and – and I do not use this term lightly – genocidal foreign occupation.
for the purposes of this argument, I’d recommend against insisting that there still isn’t a Palestinian state. Because if there isn’t a state, no matter how weak, fragmented, and occupied, then there is much less claim to autonomy.
I wasn’t making a judgment about the quality of the state, but there’s no denying the international recognition that there is one. That forms the whole basis for negotiations.
Be careful what you argue against. Bush recognized the need for a two-state solution (despite doing everything to prevent one). That might imply there is currently not two states. Or it might imply that there are two states, by right, and they need to come to an agreement. It’s in the latter sense that I talk about a state.
BooMan, a state has certain characteristics. Based on those characteristics there is no Palestinian state.
You are arguing, in essence, that if there is no Palestinian state then the Palestinians have no right to a state. This is a perfect example of circular logic, in addition to which it ignores reality.
Very disappointing.
Palestine has many features of a state. They have a president, Mahmoud Abbas. They have a Palestinian Legislative Council. They have a cabinet. I believe they have Permanent Observer status at the United Nations.
There is a technical sense in which Palestine is not a state. But the key is maintain the perception that they are a state currently suffering without the rights and autonomy of a state.
If you argue that Palestine is not, in fact, a state, and never has been, then it is easier to argue that there is no urgency to correct some wrong.
But, hey, don’t hire me as your lawyer if you don’t like my advice.
I don’t think it is necessary to make the false claim that Palestinians have a state in order to make the case that they deserve a state, but thanks anyway.
It’s an interesting theory, but I’m a big believer in acknowledging reality, and the reality is that they are a people under occupation who are being denied their most basic rights.
They lack the most critical characteristics that define a state, and their government lacks the most critical characteristics that define a government, which include little things like control of their own borders and airspace, the right to issue passports, the right to determine who enters and who does not, what goods are imported and exported, the right to determine land use, to issue building permits, business licenses, exclusive control over the use of state violence, or even the right to decide for themselves when and how they will change governments, and who is allowed to serve in the government – really, really basic stuff like that. My god, they are not even allowed to collect their own taxes, and Israel habitually punishes the Palestinian “government” by withholding the tax money it collects from the Palestinian people supposedly on behalf of the Palestinian “government”. Any entity that does not have those characteristics is not a state.
Oh yeah – I left out a biggie. The ability to issue currency is a critical characteristic of a state that the Palestinians do not have.
Hey Palestinans are in a progrom. The very circumstances Jews tried to escape. you call a progrom a Palestine state? The oppressed have become the oppressors.
you can’t be serious.
When apartheid South Africa tried to declare the one of homelands independent states – Transkei was the first to be floated as independent state 1976 – western powers made a howl .
Palestinians are walled in, not permitted to take up Fulbright scholarships, no exit for medical care, scarcity of food, electricity, clean water and you call that “a Palestine state, of sorts.”
It’s not Israel’s security from rockets that’s at stake. A land and ocean grab is underway. Huge gas fields lie off the Gaza strip and Israel is attempting to make a deal with British Energy without the Palestinians.
BooMan, I’m have a BIG disappointment here. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve been drinking something spiked with AIPAC brand overproof alcohol.
I’m making a different point. I’m making the point that there is a Palestinian state, of sorts, as opposed to prior to the establishment of Israel, when there was not such a state.
Some pro-Israelis argue that the entire concept of a Palestinian people is a modern invention. I argue, whatever…they’re here now so live with it.
Idredit, when you’re right, you are right. I could not agree with you more if I tried.
It just so happens that that “zone” has existed, and has been known as Palestine, or some variation of the word for more than 2,000 years. The British did not give it that name.
and who occupied the region? It wasn’t just goats, camels and sheep. And while we’re being revisionists, let’s not forget the Ashkenazi Jews – led by those who became heads of the modern state of Israel, our allies – engaged in quite a bit of terrorism against the Brits and Arabs. How history gets rewritten!!!
From my Jewish Family Bible replete with ancient maps:
“In the beginning there were the Kingdoms of Judah, Israel, Phoenicia, Philistia, Moab and the Empires east etc…. Before that the land of Canaan while the Jews were in the land of Egypt. In 40-4 B.C.E Canaan became Palestine – the partition of Palestine under the will of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C.E. The partition of Palestine… conquered and occupied by Rome 70 C.E. In 135 C.E. the last stronghold, the fortified town of Bettar, southwest of Jerusalem, fell to the Romans on the same date that Jerusalem, sixty five years before, had fallen – the ninth of Ab.”
“While Jewish independence was lost and the majority of Jewish people killed, Judaism continued under the spiritual guidance of Jewish scholars in Jabne called by the Romans, Yamnia”
(Jewish scholars would be the Sephardi Jews)
at the end this slanted history of the lands lying between Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, (written by Ashkenazi Jews for Ashkenazi Jews), there’s no mention of Palestine and no mention of the Sephardi Jews.
The ‘history’ narrative inserted with the map of ” The State of Israel Today” is missing the most important date, you’d think. The narrative has great details of the total land area, rivers, mountains, and population. What is stark is there is no date when the State of Israel of Israel Today was founded – whoops created out of thin air” THey can’t even admit to that!
Ashkenazi Jews in Israel need to give up their denial – give up all the occupied lands, make peace and pay reparations to the Palestinians, just as our forefathers demanded reparations from Germans.
And let’s not forget in our own recent history – the 1980s – Reagan’s death squads and “freedom fighters” who are now Al Qaeda.
I’m not sure what your point is.
The land that is now called Israel or Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. In that sense, it is no different that the province of Basra. But when Basra was transferred to an independent Iraq, led by Sunnis, you didn’t hear that the Sunnis were illegally occupying Basra.
What happened in Palestine is not the Palestinians were suddenly dispossessed of political power. They hadn’t had autonomy in living memory. What happened is that their oppressors became overtly hostile and pushed them out of their homes. On top of that, their oppressors were no longer Muslims, but that had been largely true under the British Mandate.
Finally, Begin and his buddies committed terrorism. No one in denying that.
BooMan your attempt to make an analogy between Palestine and Basra is so far beyond faulty it does not even qualify as specious. It isn’t even remotely plausible.
It would take more time than I have right now to go over even the most immediately obvious flaws in your statement that “in that sense, [Palestine] is no different that the province of Basra”, so, although I would be delighted to go into it in detail, I will name only the first few than come to mind.
In fact, what happened in Palestine is a unique case in the Middle East, and bears no resemblance at all to what happened in Basra or any other part of Iraq.
Your first two points are no longer true, thanks to Bushy-boy.
Yes, they are true and will always be true. Bush cannot change history, and history is what we are talking about.
The statement that “Basra was transferred to an independent Iraq led by Sunnis” contains so many obvious factual errors that just correcting those would require a fairly lengthy post.
I was reading about Gertrude Bell and came across this:
Doesn’t that support, “Basra was transferred to an independent Iraq led by Sunnis?”
No, it doesn’t. Not at all. This assumption, in fact, illustrates the problem with basing a conclusion on only a tiny bit of very biased and incomplete information combined with the nonsense one has been fed by the media and self-appointed “experts”.
However, this incident, when understood, opens up a very interesting and little-known episode in Iraqi history, which has been the subject of an extensive scholarly study.
This incident in reality had nothing at all to do with “The Sunnis” (I note again that there is no such entity as “the Sunnis” except in the minds of Americans who have bought into the popular mythology about Iraq).
To be very brief, in the early twenties there was a separatist movement in Basra that had no ethnic or sectarian basis at all, but consisted of a cross section of Basra’s elite political and economic society, including mainly Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The movement was based on the commercial/economic ambitions of its members, and had nothing to do with the imaginary geo-ethno-sectarian divide that Americans mistakenly believe is central to Iraq’s history, and present-day reality.
It was not “the people of Basra” who pleaded with Gertrude Bell in 1921, it was representatives of this elite separatist movement.
The movement failed because the elites who comprised the movement were unable to mobilize popular support for their separatist project. In other words, they were unable to get the people of Basra to share their enthusiasm.
And on a slightly different note, while the story of imperialists like Gertrude Bell and their imported puppets, such as Feisal, is an important and interesting part of history, I would be cautious about accepting accounts and interpretations of events from their point of view as representing any reality but their own. They, were not Iraqis, and in reality they were not as in touch with Iraqi reality as people might like to believe they were.
This is silly.
We must speak in generalities.
What does that mean in plain language? It means that the Ottomans split Basra from Baghdad in 1884, in response to displeasure from the Shi’as that made up the vast majority of the population of Basra. That the people of Basra made the same request again in 1921 is no surprise. But perhaps you’re right about the dynamics being more complex that Shi’a vs. Sunni.
What’s important is that the Shi’a didn’t rule themselves, even though they were the majority. I understand your point about not overemphasizing the Sunni/Shi’a divide in Iraq. But the people didn’t like being ruled by Turkish taxlords any more than they like being pushed around by Saddam.
Ah yes, BooMan! Wikipedia is ever so much better a source than my own studies, scholarly sources, and direct insider experience could possibly EVER be! What on EARTH was I thinking? I really should just confine myself to reading Wikipedia articles if I really want to be well informed.
Look, the Basra separatist movement has been very well studied. It was not sectarian based. It was a movement by political and economic elites of the city that included Sunnis, Shi`as, Christians, and Jews, and, possibly Mandaeans too. Furthermore, it failed because the general population just couldn’t get excited enough about it to get behind it. If you can turn that into Shi`as hating to be ruled by Sunnis, be my guest, but I won’t join you. I insist upon stubbornly believing that it was a cross-sectarian movement based mainly on commercial interests that failed because apparently the rest of the population of Basra didn’t hate being ruled by Sunnis enough to care.
Thank you.
It is most interesting the various lens through which one might view the past and the present – much like a kaleidoscope.
It’s never as simple as we want to make it. That’s one of the things that makes it so eternally fascinating, and frustrating too. So many different ways to view it, so many nuances. One could devote a lifetime to studying just a tiny snapshot of time and place and never see a truly full view with all the shades of all the colours.
That is one thing that frustrates me when I see and hear all the so-called “experts” bloviating on the media and the web and realize that even most smart, well-intentioned, decently-informed Americans are going to think that is the story because they have no better sources.
And it is something that frustrates me when I try to talk about it. There is no way given the time and space limitations that I can provide a three-dimensional, nuanced view of what I know about. And if I could no one would take the time to read it anyway!
you’re having a very hard time following my logic. You aren’t rebutting me at all, although you seem to think that you are.
First I outlined the sense in which Basra and Palestine were similar. And they were:
Then I pointed out how they were different. Namely, that the people of Basra were still controlled by outside forces (be they British, or be they Sunni) by they were not forced out of their homes.
What was my point? That the outrage in Palestine is not that people lost political power or lacked autonomy, but that they were forced from their homes and (as an aggravating factor) were governed by non-Muslims. The fact that most of those non-Muslims were also not even indigenous to the region was an even bigger irritant.
Why does this matter? Because, over time, this led to the emergence of a people, now called the Palestinians, who shared a common experience of oppression. Prior to the end of Ottoman rule, these people were still oppressed, they still lacked autonomy, but they were ruled by Muslims and they were left free on their land.
I agree with you, by the way, that it no longer matters whether there was a Palestinian people when this all began. That was my whole point.
OK, I think I understand what you were trying to say before. In fact, it seems you were trying to contrast Palestine and Basra, not draw a parallel. That was not clear to me. Perhaps I did not read carefully enough.
However, you are basing your argument on assumptions that are both incomplete and in a number of ways contra factual. You, like most Americans (including a lot of exceptionally well-informed ones) are basing your argument on the current popularly accepted and largely fallacious “received truths” about 1920’s (and present-day) Iraq, Palestine, Arabs, and Muslims. On top of this you are, as you often do, imposing your 20th-21st century American model on the Middle East of the 20th century.
In fact, if you really knew and understood the history of 19th and early 20th century Palestine, including the history and development of nationalism, you would understand that the outrage was, indeed, in large part over the loss of political and economic power and autonomy – something Palestinians, just as people in other parts of the Ottoman empire (including Iraq), had been aspiring to, struggling, and in some case violently fighting for, for some time.
And if you really knew and understood the political, economic, demographic and social history of Iraq, you would understand that your notion about Basra being ruled by some outsiders known as “the Sunnis” is not connected with reality.
And I think you would understand as well that being ruled by Muslims versus non-Muslims was, at best, a minor factor.
I have a pretty good understanding of these things, although my history is a little rusty on some dates.
It is my opinion that you consistently underhype the degree to which the Shi’a of southern Iraq have both been oppressed and have felt themselves to be oppressed. And it’s not just them, but the Shi’a of Kuwait and Northeast Saudi Arabia.
You like to paint a picture of sectarian harmony in Iraq, which is probably influenced by a desire to compensate for American misperceptions in the opposite direction…namely, the failure to understand the degree of sectarian integration and harmony in pre-invasion Iraq. I understand that.
But Greater Basra has been a Shi’a dominated region for millenia, without control of their shrines, and without the kind of autonomy and power they see right across the border in Iran.
To pretend this tension hasn’t been constant since Ottoman times and right on through to the present day is dishonest.
I suspect that sectarian relations have been much better historically in Baghdad, but that cosmopolitanism isn’t universal, and never was.
BooMan, I know quite a bit about sectarian relations in Basra, and it is not just limited to relations between Sunnis and Shi`as, but includes relations among Muslims, Christians, and Jews. And I have knowledge and experience of this not just during the period of Saddam’s rule, when there WAS politically-based oppression of Shi`as in southern Iraq, but going back quite a bit before that. I think, among other things you are perhaps conflating societal relations with political tension and government oppression.
It is also a fact that especially since statehood Basra has been a commercial, technological, and intellectual center with a very cosmopolitan and diverse population, contrary to the impression you seem to have. It is the center of Iraq’s oil industry and was the home of excellent centers of learning, and some of the most bright and capable people in the country, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, not to mention quite a significant international community. It also historically had a very prominent and important Jewish population, as well as a variety of Christian sects, not to mention mandaeans, and quite a few Kurds and assorted others. So yes, the majority were Shi`as, but there were plenty of others too.
Greater Basra cannot have been Shi`a dominated for millennia because Shi`a Islam, and in fact Islam itself has not existed for Millennia.
As for Shi`a not having control of their own shrines, that has not been the case as far as I know in recent history. On the occasions that I visited the critically important shrines in Karbala’ and Najaf they sure looked like they were in the control of Shi`as and not anyone else. Even at the worst times under Saddam, even though some of their public religious practices were curtailed (largely, as I recall, because of the potential threat to the regime of allowing Shi`as in a very heightened emotional state to gather in crowds of tens of thousands – an understandable precaution, as unacceptable as it is to curtail freedom of religious practice), to the best of my knowledge, Shi`as remained in control of their mosques and shrines and religious practices. In fact, it was that self-important little cock-a-hoop Paul Bremer, not Saddam Hussein, who stupidly imposed a Sunni mayor on Najaf – and one known to be very corrupt at that.
Parenthetically, it might surprise some people to learn that the two most revered Shi`a figures, ‘Ali and Hussein, are equally revered by Sunni Muslims. In fact, I have visited important shrines to Hussein in Cairo and Damascus, the latter inside the Omayyid mosque which also contains a shrine to John the Baptist right in the middle of the main prayer area (it is one of several places in which the head of John the Baptist was supposedly discovered). Both shrines are always full of Iranian pilgrims along with everyone else.
To believe that there have been centuries of constant tension among people living in close proximity, belonging to the same tribes, and intermarrying at a relatively high rate without a history of frequent serious violent conflict is pretty unrealistic. And yet, historically prior to 2003 there have been only three episodes of serious violence between Sunnis and Shi`as in Iraq and each of those three episodes occurred as a result of foreign invasions. In addition, during at least some of those episodes there were also times when Sunnis and Shi`as rallied to defend one another from attacks by the invaders – an important nuance.
There was also politically based oppression of Shi`as by Saddam Hussein’s government as a result of opposition by some Shi`a groups who wanted to overthrow the secular regime and turn Iraq into a Shi`a religious state – something Bush has helped them to accomplish finally. There were severe oppression and terrible state crimes against Shi`as – again, politically based – as a result of the 1991 insurgency, which was not, contrary to popular myth, only undertaken by Shi`as and Kurds. That DID lead to some added tensions at the level of society, but it did not cause neighbor to turn against neighbor pr business partner to turn against business partner, or family member against family member, and as far as I know the rate of mixed marriages did not slow significantly – certainly I know of a lot of mixed marriages that took place during that period without any issues, including in my own family.
Some people understandably characterize the oppression of the Shi`as by Saddam’s regime as sectarian. To the extent that people were oppressed simply because they were Shi`as that is not completely inaccurate, but it is important to recognize that the basis for the oppression was political, not religious, and Saddam also oppressed Sunnis in places like Falluja, which were known to be rebellious against the regime.
As for my “painting a picture of sectarian harmony”, I have been careful to state clearly that Iraq’s diverse population got along with each other as well as any other diverse population, and better than some. I don’t know of any diverse population in which there are not some tensions, including some people who are hostile to those who are different from them, and Iraq’s is no different in that regard. The idea of pure harmony amongst humans anywhere is pretty foolish and unrealistic.
The situation for the Shi`as of Iraq has been quite different from that of the Shi`as of other countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as, for example, Pakistan. In Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan there is far more religiously-based prejudice than in Iraq, and it is far more common and stronger at the level of society. Also since statehood in Iraq Shi`as have always held positions of political and military power, even in the latter years of Saddam’s regime when oppression of the Shi`as was most severe. That is not the case in countries like Kuwait, Saudi, or Pakistan.
The Ba`th party is not only not a Sunni party, it is not a Muslim party. It was founded by a Christian and an Allawite Muslim (Allawite Islam is an offshoot of Shi`ism) as a secular, highly inclusive party, though perhaps not as inclusive as the Communist party. The Ba`th party rules Syria, where the President is an Allawite. Saddam, for all the horrors he perpetrated, was not a sectarian. He cared only about whether he believed he could trust someone’s loyalty. Those he trusted were rewarded richly regardless of sect or ethnicity. Those he did not trust were punished ruthlessly, regardless of sect, or ethnicity, or their familial relationship to him.
OK, there isn’t nearly enough nuance in the above, but it’s already too long and rather rambling. I think it contains some useful information, though, for anyone willing to slog through it, so I will leave it as is.
there is useful information there. Two points of clarity.
When we talk about the Shi’a in Afghanistan and Pakistan, again, we’re talking about a severely oppressed religious minority, with basically second-class citizenship (especially the Imami Hazara). In Iraq, that has not been the case. Yet, if you look at the Arab Shi’a belt, from Iran to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, there is a sense of a common history of oppression. That sense was stoked by the Iranian Revolution. And it, of course, had a large role in the 1991 uprising in Iraq.
One last point. It is with great regret that my country has destroyed the traditional relationship of Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq, including in Baghdad, where they had been both most integrated and most harmonious. But the old harmony is gone. If news reports can be believed, things have improved in the last 18 months. I hope that things will continue to improve. But there has been a tremendous amount of sectarian killing and people have long memories.
So, what once might have been the case is no longer necessarily true.
And I believe Saddam Hussein’s feelings about the Shia came through in shining colors in comments he made at his trial and to his captors. I kind of doubt that those prejudices came as a surprise to Iraqis, nor that they aren’t shared by the Sunni elite that made up the bulk of Saddam’s government.
“being in control of your shrines means being able to celebrate your holiest holidays.“
No wonder people are not following your logic. Shrines are not holy day celebrations, they are consecrated physical structures. Controlling shrines is a completely different thing from celebrating holy days. If you use the term “control shrines” when you mean “celebrate holy days” do not be surprised when 100% of people respond by arguing that control of shrines has never been a problem. If you want to make a point about celebrating holy days, and expect to be understood, please use the term celebrate holy days.
“Imagine of the Prime Minister of Italy forbade Catholics to assemble at the Vatican on Easter. I don’t mean to imply that the Pope couldn’t hold regular Sunday services.“
If that happened I hope you wouldn’t describe it by saying the Pope was not in charge of his shrines because if you did no one would have a clue what you were talking about. I hope you would describe it by saying Catholics were not allowed to assemble at the Vatican to celebrate their holiest day. Then your meaning would be clear.
“You’re right to point out that Basra (the city) is and has been a diverse and vibrant place. But, as I’ve been using the term ‘Basra’ here, throughout, it is a region. Roughly speaking Basra is the south of the country“
But Basra does NOT mean the south of the countryside unless you are specifically talking about a certain period in Ottoman Iraq, and even then you need to make it clear that you are talking about the wilaya of Basra and not the city. In the context of the modern-day state of Iraq, Basra means the city of Basra unless you make it clear you are talking about the province of Basra, which comprises a relatively small part of the south.
And by the way, the Ottoman wilaya of Basra did not even include the most important and dense Shi`a areas.
The two most important cities in all of Shi`a Islam, Karbala’ and Najaf, were part of the wilaya of Baghdad, and quite far from the boundary between the two wilayat (that doesn’t say much for all that supposedly historic Shi`a separatism, does it?).
“in contrast to say Baghdad in the center and Mosul in the North.“
Only if you are clearly talking about Ottoman Iraq, and even then you have to specify clearly whether you are referring to the city or the wilaya. If you are talking about the modern-day state, Baghdad means the city unless you make it clear you are talking about the province, and Mosul means the city, period. The province in which Mosul is located is called Ninewah, not Mosul.
You cannot blame people for not understanding your meaning if you talk about control of shrines when you mean celebration of holy days, and refer to Basra when you mean the entire south of the country.
And similary, if you wish to be clear, when you are talking about the experiences of the Shi`a of Iraq you cannot tacitly throw in the Shi`a of Kuwait, Sa’udia, and Pakistan, lump them all together, and expect someone knowledgeable about Iraq to agree with you that they have the same or even a similar history and situation. You cannot even talk about the Shi`a of Lebanon in the same sense as you talk about the Shi`a of Kuwait, Sa`udia, and Pakistan, and whereas the Shi`as of Lebanon have an experience more similar to that of Iraqi Shi`as, they are not the same. And by the same token, if I spoke about the history and situation of Shi`as in Iraq as if it were shared by Shi`as in Kuwait, Sa`udia, and Pakistan, I would – and should – have no credibility at all.
You seem to have a lot of book-information, which is wonderful, and very impressive. I wish more Americans were half as informed as you are. That gives you a framework and a basic foundation for understanding that very few people have. It also, unfortunately, cannot give you a good sense of context or a nuanced view, and it creates important gaps and biases depending on what you have read and what you have gleaned from it. You need context in order to develop a fully three-dimensional, nuanced understanding. And part of context is understanding that there is are huge differences among Iraqi Shi`as, Lebanese Shi`as and the historically religiously, socially, economically, and politically oppressed Shi`as of Kuwait, Lebanon, and particularly Pakistan.
I thank you deeply for your expression of regret. Your country has destroyed the fabric of Iraqi society – a fabric that was created over thousands of years, and in which every thread was vital. Iraqis did not only consist of Shi`as and Sunnis, or even Shi’as, Sunnis, and Kurds, but included many, many vital and vibrant peoples, some of whom, like the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jews, and Mandaeans predated the Arabs by centuries or millennia, and had always been important parts of the societal, economic, intellectual, and even political fabric of the country. Others, such as the Armenians, were more recent arrivals who had been welcomed and who quickly integrated into all parts of society. All that is in tatters now, and will never be repaired.
As for what is commonly referred to as sectarian killing, again, it is important to understand its political as opposed to religious basis. In fact, I notice that even Juan Cole, whose analyses have frequently been flawed by his biases and lack of direct experience of Iraq, now uses the term political violence, which indicates a better understanding of the nature of the situation. It might help to keep in mind that from the first weeks some of the most important and pervasive, though largely obscured, violence and killing has been and continues to be between Shi`a and Shi`a, not Shi`a and Sunni. And it is also important to be aware of the numerous efforts from both sides to unite against the occupation – efforts which the invaders/occupiers and their Iraqi agents have quickly taken steps to squash.
As for what Saddam said in his trial and to his captors, let us understand that in its context and not try to over-generalize it, shall we?
The reason I have been using Ottoman terms is because we began this discussing the similarities and differences between Iraq and Palestine at the time of Britain’s post-Ottoman takeover. Sorry for the confusion.
And don’t disagree that the experience of Shiites has varied from place to place. I can’t think of a Sunni-majority country that has treated the Shi’a better than Iraq. But that still isn’t saying much. I also think that post-1991, that Sunni-Shi’a relations in Iraq deteriorated, especially in the south-north respect. You had the crackdown in the south, the draining of the marshes, the assassination of the elder Sadrs, and the restrictions on pilgrammages. The tensions had grown before the 2003 invasion, and that is one thing our intelligence agencies badly underestimated.
Frankly, I suspect that the CIA stoked sectarian differences starting in early 2005, as a way to peel the Sunnis away from outright insurgency. But I have no proof of that.
reading this comment over, I realize one sentence is easy to misread. I do not mean to imply that Iraq is a Sunni-majority country, but that they are no Sunni-majority countries that have treated the Shi’a as well as Iraq has. In fact, that is probably due to the fact that Iraq is not a Sunni-majority country.
OK. Well, next time we have a discussion like this we should post maps with pointers next to each geographical reference. Nothing like a good visual to aid clarity.
The history of Shi`as in Iraq is different from the history of Shi`as anywhere else in the Arab and most of the Muslim world, and it actually IS saying quite a lot. While there have been periods of serious oppression, mostly toward the last decade of Saddam’s rule, for the most part Shi`as have been an integral part of Iraqi society, and have held very high positions of power and influence in all facets – economically, academically, intellectually, culturally, artistically, and politically.
The high rate of intermarriage, the fact that Iraqis intermix freely and comfortably, and the existence of so many mixed tribes are important indicators too. That has not been the case in most other countries where they are indeed second class citizens and are in many ways segregated from mainstream society.
I have a different take on why this is than you do. The fact that Shi`as are a majority might be a factor, but I think it is less that than it is the nature of Iraqi society. Iraqis generally identify as Iraqi first, and sect or ethnicity is somewhere down the list. That might be less true now inside Iraq than it was – I can’t really say – but it is still very true among exiles. There is an interesting documentary about Iraqi Jews in Israel in which this comes out in several contexts.
You could know someone for years without knowing what their religion was. I know situations, including in my own family, in which couples got engaged before they or their families had any idea of which sect each one belonged to. It just was not a factor, so no one even thought about finding out. That was not the case in every family, of course, but it was very common.
You are quite right that tensions and resentments increased after 1991. They increased in many respects, including tensions between north and south, which was to an extent translated into Shi`a-Sunni tensions.
The crackdowns in the south were entirely predicable and understandable (which does not make it acceptable at all) in view of the insurgency, and it is shocking that the United States, what with its claims that its illegally-imposed no-fly zones were for the protection of the Shi`as, did absolutely nothing to prevent or stop any of it. Of course during the 1991 insurgency the U.S. actively aided and abetted Saddam in a number of ways. That’s a story that needs repeating often, but not now.
The killing of the Sadrs was also entirely predictable and understandable in view of their active opposition to the regime.
The draining of the marshes was a shock for me, and a cause of enormous anguish from all kinds of perspectives, but also understandable coming from a despotic dictator who had proven his willingness to brutally squash any and all opposition.
As for the Americans’ contribution to all this after 2003, almost everything they did was based on a confident belief in the contra-factual Iraq Creation Myth. You know, “Iraq was cobbled together by forcing together three distinct geo-ethno-sectarian entities whose inhabitants had detested and slaughtered each other from time immemorial and did not want to live together as a nation and have only been held together by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein”, blahblahblah. In other words, Iraq is divided into Sunnis, Shi`as, and Kurds, and they have this ancient hatred and really want nothing to do with each other. It was, in some ways, an attempt to apply the Balkan model, which Iraq simply does not fit. In fact, I have been shocked to read that kind of thing even from Patrick Cockburn, who has a lot of experience in Iraq, and really ought to know better by now.
Consequently, almost from day one we were hearing reports of American troops and officials making sect the first thing they addressed, and putting it as THE paramount consideration, though it is not at all clear that they knew why they were doing it or what to do once they had established a person’s religious affiliation. This was confusing to most Iraqis. For example, troops would go into a village or call together the town leaders and the first thing they did was to tell all the Sunnis to go to one side of the room, and all the Shi`as to go to another. You just cannot imagine how weird that is, even given the exceptional tensions of the ’90’s and early ’00’s. It’s weird enough if there are only Sunnis and Shi`as in the room, but it REALLY gets weird if you also have Christians, Turkmens, Kurds, or some other group represented in the mix.
There were reports of people who were accosted or arrested (kidnapped is more accurate) by the Americans who only EVER asked them one question – are you Sunni or Shi’ite. That happened to one of our neighbors, an octogenarian with Parkinson’s disease who was dragged out of his home, denied his medicine, and detained for several days. That was the only question they asked him in all the days they kept him. His answer to the question? I am a Muslim. to which the Americans’ response was that they would not release him until he told them one or the other.
And then, of course, there was the ridiculous political system the Americans imposed on the Iraqis, which caused further tensions for a variety of reasons, and the Americans’ clear efforts from the beginning to interfere with any attempts at creating unity. And I have no proof either, but it does seem quite likely that the Americans, be it the CIA or whomever, conducted some specific operations designed to intensify tensions. In fact, though I am not at all a subscriber to conspiracy-theory-type thinking, the bombing of the Amariyya mosque is highly suspicious.
Uuuufff – more long-winded ramblings. There may be something worthwhile in there, so I’ll leave it.
yes, the bombing is very suspicious.
PS As a matter of fact, non-Sunni Arabs had many more opportunities to gain positions of real political power after the creation of the State of Iraq than they did under Ottoman rule, and no party has provided more opportunities to a wider variety of non-Sunni-Arabs than the Ba`th party did, with the possible exception of the Communist party. I know people don’t like to hear anything positive about the Ba`th party and especially ab out Saddam Hussein, but facts are facts.
PPS You did not hear that “the Sunnis”* were illegally occupying Basra for the simple reason that “the Sunnis” were not occupying Basra at all.
* There is no such entity as “The Sunnis” except in the minds of some Americans.
Guess you need to understand what it is to be a Sephardi Jew…but that’s for another discourse. What a difference!
To your point: here’s my clarification
If Palestinians have no claim or related previous history to those lands between Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan then neither do Ashkenazi Jews who hailed first from Russia to escape the progroms there (prior to 1900) and then from Europe at the end of World War II.
After WWII, it was first proposed that the refugees – “European Jews” be resettled in Uganda? Some went to South Africa.
Let’s begin with the Jewish progroms – the period of Jewish history known as the Russian horrors 1840s-1900 – that was the catalyst of the Zionist idea. ..an idea as old as The Babylonian exile and the rescue of Jews from Damascus. When the Russian Jews began arriving in numbers from Odessa, even then some warned:
It’s time for Israel to catch up with humanity. We continue to hang our heads in shame. We’re ashamed, beyond counting.
BooMan, using the argument that there was no political entity known as Palestine is nearly always a specious attempt to invalidate the existence and rightful claims of the Palestinian people. I know enough about your point of view to believe that this is not your point here. However, I must point out that whether or not there was a political entity known as Palestine is irrelevant to most issues involving Palestine, Palestinians, and Israel.
It is a fact that historically the general geographical region we think of as Palestine (in the pre-1948 sense) was defined , albeit somewhat and has been known in various languages as Palestine for more than 2,000 years (I can provide specifics if desired, but I won’t bore you with them now). And the peoples of Palestine have had some sense of regional identity for centuries at least. Historically the development of Palestinian nationalism more or less parallels and is concurrent with the rest of Arab nationalism.
But even that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there were people who lived in Palestine, whose home was Palestine, and most of whom had a continuous family history in Palestine, often on the same piece of land, going back many, many centuries. Their rights have been trampled and continue to be trampled whether they belonged to a nation or a political entity or not.
And by the way, the Golan Heights are STILL part of Syria. That they are occupied territory is unchallengeable, and their colonization and the exploitation of the resources of the Golan Heights are grievous violations of international law. As for the very systematic and selective ethnic cleansing that Israel conducted – its most successful ethnic cleansing operation to date (expulsion of 96% of the population, and destruction of 95% of the towns and villages) was one of Israel’s many crimes against humanity – crimes that are ongoing today.
EVEN IF..
Let’s say there wasn’t a Palestine. Even so, the activities of the State of Israel have created a class of people (as in class action) who have self-organized, self-identified and turned into a real nation characterized and unified by perceived and very real Israeli oppression. While no people can be purely defined in terms of conflict with another, it can provide cohesion where it might not have been before.
I don’t see how justice can be served short or recognizing their nationhood.
Add to that the reality that they are just people trying to live somewhere. The freedom to do so should be guarded more jealously by the rest of the world.
You are absolutely correct, and have made an excellent point.
Seems to me that at the end of WWII there was a piece of land at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean known as Palestine that had people known as Palestinians.
Am I missing something? Is this not true?
I don’t really think that’s very accurate.
There was a British Mandate over a wide slice of the Middle East.
I don’t think there was a people properly known as Palestinians at that time. The more common term would have been simply ‘Arabs’.
BooMan, you are exhibiting a real facility with the standard Zionist talking points designed to invalidate the legitimacy of the Palestinians’ case. This is deeply disappointing.
Not that it even matters what the Palestinian people were “properly” called (by whose definition of “properly”), but whatever the British imperialists and the Zionist colonizers called them, they WERE known as Palestinians. And as a collective entity, it was not at all proper to call them Arabs, as many Zionists insist on to this day if only because calling them Arabs is not accurate.
Not all Zionist arguments are lacking points of fact. Insofar as the pre-1947 use of the word ‘Palestinian’ has currency, it would have applied equally to a citizen of Amman. Acknowledging that point, and then arguing that it does not support a Zionist argument, is not making a Zionist argument.
No, in 1947 Palestinian would not have applied to a “citizen” of Amman. Amman was by that time not part of Palestine.
One of the things I find interesting about your arguments on Palestine in particular is your use of largely irrelevant “technicalities”, which is a very popular device used by Zionists particularly when they don’t have a real factual, reality-based, logical, or moral leg to stand on. For example, you say there were no people who were “properly” called Palestinians, thus avoiding the real question of whether there were people who were ACTUALLY called, or identified themselves as Palestinians, and implying that if they were called Palestinians, it was not proper to call them that (because they were really NOT Palestinians?). Thereby you use one mechanism to invalidate their identity as Palestinians while appearing to argue another point.
And by arguing the irrelevant technicality that there was no political entity known as Palestine, you also use a false device to invalidate Palestinian political rights and claims as well as their identity.
Truly, whatever your actual intentions, it appears you have been well schooled in the Zionist arguments and techniques.
The important reality is that there is a geographical entity that has been known as Palestine (or some version of that word) since AT LEAST the fifth century BCE when Herodotus referred to it as Palaestina, and that there were people living there who for centuries identified themselves with that geographical region.
The same is true, by the way, of Iraq. The region that roughly comprises the territory of modern-day Iraq has been known by that name for millennia, and there was a sense of regional identity before the existence of the Republic of Iraq led to the development of a national Iraqi identity. The fact that the Ottomans divided the region into three parts for the purpose of administration does not change that reality.
What I failed to point out above is the most critical reality to understand. Regardless of what they called themselves, or what they could be “properly” called, the critical reality is that the peoples of Palestine as well as the peoples of Iraq had a sense of regional identity long before they even had a concept of politically based national identity. Collectively during Ottoman rule they did have aspirations to political and economic power and autonomy that they periodically struggled and sometimes fought and died for. This sense of collective identity and desire for autonomy grew over time, and the end of Ottoman rule, and the changes and disappointments that took place then activated and solidified this desire for autonomy and self determination into various focused nationalist movements, including Palestinian nationalism.
The bottom line is that it really doesn’t matter what you or anyone else insists they were or were not “properly” called, or whether they were part of a political entity known as “X”. The critical reality is that they had a sense of individual and collective identity and an increasingly strong desire for autonomy, self-determination, and freedom from external rule from Ottoman times. That is the central reality, not what you or anyone else thinks they or the region in which they lived could be “properly” called at any point in history.
you’re the one harping on the importance of this distinction. My entire point in bringing it up was to dismiss its importance.
My whole point is that it doesn’t matter what they were called or whether they were ‘a people’ in the past, or whatever. Why? Because they are certainly ‘a people’ now.
As for Basra, you again miss the point. The people of Basra have not ruled Basra in memory. They have been ruled by Turks, by Persians, by Brits, and by Arabs of a different sect, and by Brits again. Without discussing any particular uprising in specifics, the people of Basra have revolted many times against their oppressors. Sometimes the revolt may have been economic, sometimes religious, sometimes for some other reason. But they haven’t had autonomy, they haven’t have self-determination. Yet, it isn’t considered terribly unusual or merit much international concern that this is the case. Why? Because they may not have had self-governance, but they haven’t been forced out of their homes.
Now, if you want to talk about the Swamp Arabs of southern Iraq, that’s a different story. Saddam did drive them out of their homes and there was at least some international outrage about it.
I think you assume I am making arguments I am not making because I don’t sound like a Palestinian advocate. But it ought to be quite clear that I am not an advocate for either side. You may find that disappointing.
Yes, Saddam drove them out, and destroyed their unique way of life, in addition to destroying a very important wetland, thus committing a huge crime against the environment as well as a crime against humanity. He did it because the marshes were being used as a hiding place for forces opposed to his rule, some of which forces included a number of Marsh Arabs. What’s that got to do with “the people of Basra” never ruling Basra?
Yes, I meant Marsh Arabs.
Again, I believe the main points of disagreement between us are really mostly a failure to agree on terms.
But I also believe that you do not see the Shi’a as an historically oppressed people in the same way that I do. I see the Shi’a of Iraq as similar to the Shi’a of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Lebanon in a way that you simply don’t. I see their historic plight as similar to that of the Kurds or the displaced Palestinians, or the in-place Palestinians.
In other words, they are all people that have suffered for either their religious beliefs, their ethnicity, or both. I also believe that the Shi’a tolerate domination from Sunnis in a way they do not tolerate dominate by Christians or Jews. A large part of Shi’a identity revolves around being politically dispossessed, almost as the natural order of things. But their is nothing natural about taking orders from Lebanese Christians or British/American occupiers.
It’s in this greater context, that I see the plight of the Palestinians. In many ways, it isn’t all that different from how the Kurds or Shiites have been treated throughout recent history. I think Lebanon and Jordan’s treatment of Palestinians has been deplorable. But there is one very important difference. And that difference is that Israel caused the refugee problem (and were not merely reacting to it) and that they continue to go beyond political oppression to include economic and human rights oppression.
I have two concerns about this. The first is that, in focusing so much on the plight of the Palestinians, we get distracted by the oppression of other Middle Eastern people. And the second is, that in making the case for the Palestinians so much about self-determination, and not about human rights, we allow the Israeli’s to exploit our hypocrisy.
I wouldn’t call myself neutral on the Palestinian question. I believe that they should have political, economic, and human rights, like every other population of people. And I am advocate for that. But I don’t care about the details. I refuse to engage in the pointless back and forth arguments that define the conflict.
We know the basic outlines of a settlement and we need to just do it, without worrying about past grievances. I am advocate for peace and human rights, for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, for the people of Lebanon, and the Hazara of Afghanistan.
Yes, at the end of WWII there as a piece of land known as Palestine, and that land had people – a very diverse people that included a variety of native ethnicities and religions, including Muslims, Christians, and native Jews (as opposed to the Zionist European colonists) as well as other, smaller groups, including Arabs, Maronites, Circassians, Armenians, and others – who were called Palestinians.
That there was, in the modern-day western sense, no political entity known as Palestine is one of the many talking points that has been part of Zionist indoctrination parroted mindlessly by the push-button-talking-doll propagandists for decades. The main problem with it is that the absence of a political entity known as Palestine in no way whatsoever leads rationally to the conclusion that there were no Palestinian lands.
Isn’t it getting time to quit trying to parse the babble of a moron? There are deep and real complexities in issues like terrorism. We’re not going to unravel them even a tiny bit by including the likes of Palin or O’Reilly or Limbaugh or Coulter or anybody named Tucker in the discussion. Philosophy and politics are not within the range of bimbo expertise.
She’s not the bimbo people think. It’s the same intellectual possum game that Bush plays. Not saying she’s brilliant or anything, but she’s not misspeaking all the time as portrayed.
For example, when she says she believes the VP has all sorts of powers in the senate. Cheney believes it too. It’s not some crack pot idea she is pulling out of her ass, it’s an extra-constitutional strategy that will provide a doorway through which anything is possible.
I disagree. She’s shrewd in her limited way, but there’s no intellect there. As countless rightwing pols and “celebrities” have established, gross ignorance is no impediment to scheming your way to success. Cheney believes the imperial VP is how it should be. Palin believes that’s how it is, just as she believes that Jesus created the universe 6000 years ago.
While I find those beliefs lunacy, there is a difference between power-mad and god-crazy, and just plain stupid.
She’d be a lot less threatening if she was just dumb. It sounds dumb, but it’s code-speak for those who wish to listen for it.
The importance between being clever, intelligent or just being capable of reading the script becomes less and less important these days.
Reagan was just a damned actor with reactionary tendencies who was put in front of a podium to feed the angry red meat. Hell, the last four years of his Presidency he was probably in the early stages of Alzheimers.
We’ve just had eight years of another performance, this time by the son of a CIA director who pretended to be a born-again cowboy.
At least with the Republicans, there is no need to have anything more than the most meager intelligence. A politicians handlers provide the policy, the words, the scenery, whatever’s needed to sell the latest lie.
Forgot to say: Which makes her hypocrisy an arguable proposition. She’s probably not smart enough (or sane enough — there’s no way to identify the problem at this distance) to be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy requires the ability to grasp that saying/believing stuff that’s diametrically opposed to each other is a problem.
I think you give her (and Bush) too much credit. I can understand that it is difficult to believe that anyone that dumb can rise to the level of power they have, but believe it. It happens.
I think Bush’s stupidity is his ultimate shield from responsibility.
Think of it from the fundamentalist, revolutionary Repug’s POV:
C’mon. Mission Accomplished, people. Life is not a popularity contest – it just plays one on TV.
I like your definition of terrorism as a tool of asymmetric ‘warfare’, but under a false flag operation, the definition can be inverted as well as the effects. See some 9/11 ‘truth’ theories.
In the midst of all the nation wide talk about terrorists and terrorism, most notable by its absence is any mention of fanaticism. You mentioned that people who become utterly depressed by the feeling of total powerlessness resort to acts of terrorism to drive their objections deep into the psyche of the main body of the general population. I fully agree that these acts are acts of terrorism.
However, I will differ on the point that the perpetrators of such acts think or even consider the psychological impact on the general population resulting from the success of their planned attack. The primary motivation of any such perpetrator is being radicalized to the point of becoming a completely violent fanatic. Such persons are driven to the point of being totally consumed by the desperate need to inflict that maximum damage available to them on the most vulnerable target of those perceived as the enemy. Nothing can deter or extinguish this need, and the perpetrator gives little thought to the aftermath.
Incorrectly, we label and so identify fanatics with the term terrorist, which IMHO serves primarily to dehumanize the fanatic by identifying the perpetrator only in terms of the effects of his/her destructive act. In turn, the act of dehumanizing the perpetrator casts the respective individual into some abstract alien form; thereby relieving us of any necessity to search for any answers to the question of what caused the extreme pressure of radicalization which lead to the fanaticism of the perpetrator. This extreme radicalization is the prime agent that lead to the violent fanaticism of the individual which in turn eventually achieved it’s ultimate expression in the form of some outrageous destructive attack on innocent people.
However, our responsibility as members of the human race is to fully and satisfactorily investigate the perpetrator’s fanaticism, regardless of the emotional strain in our feelings toward the innocent victims and the perpetrator of the despicable attack. It is the only way for humanity to find a way to eventually remove the scourge of terrorism from the world.
By the way, BooMan, I would suggest that terrorism WAS effective for the Basque. And for Spain, finally realizing that reacting to terrorism with massive violence is not an effective way to combat it has also yielded benefits. They were actually able to satisfy all but the most extremist groups by finding out what the Basques wanted, and negotiating a mutually agreeable arrangement.
Terrorism, like other types of crime, can never be eliminated. The best you can do is to figure out effective ways to minimize it to a level that is manageable and tolerable. That might not be a happy fact, but it is a fact nevertheless.
Mandela was not Gandhi. He was for violent resistance. He headed the MK, military arm of the ANC. In his autobiography, Nelson Mandela defines four levels of armed conflict (chapter 45):
Sabotage, guerilla warfare, terrorism, and open revolution.
Sabotage is attacks on unmanned facilities. Destruction of infrastructure. Loss of life is avoided.
Guerilla warfare focuses attacks on military targets, both infrastructure and human.
Terrorism targets civilians.
Open revolution does all three of the above.
The MK chose sabotage as their method, because it allowed for the greatest chance for reconciliation. Mandella felt terrorism would ultimately undermine their cause, turning sympathetic whites and coloureds against the blacks. It seems to me Ayers was active in sabotage, as well. No people were ever targeted, just installations. The only people ever killed were Weather Undergrounders killed by their own bomb.
On a totally unrelated note, is there any way to fix the formatting on the RSS feeds? These posts come out as huge blocks of text with no paragraphs or anything. Very tough to read.
Yes, the Weathermen were generally in favor of sabotage. I think they killed at least two people, however, before the accidentally killed a bunch of themselves.
As for the RSS feeds, I’ll have to look into it.
You stated unequivocally in the post that they had murdered people, and there is no evidence of this that I know of. By two people before the blowup of themselves, I suppose you’re referring to the pipebomb that killed Brian V. McDonnell and disfigured Robert Fogarty, both cops. Both the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were suspected of that, and investigated, but no case was ever made. The government tried again and brought it before a grand jury, but it did not indict. For a grand jury to refuse to indict radical bombers accused or murdering and disfiguring cops means there had to be really no evidence: indictment is a much lower standard than conviction, and juries side strongly with cops against radicals, and with the disfigured. I don’t think you should be accusing people of murder if you don’t have the facts behind you.
Some former members of the WU (though not Ayers or Dohrn) later got mixed up with the Black Liberation Army, and drove the getaway car for an armored car robbery wherein the drivers were shot. They were convicted as accessories to those murders I believe.
So if you know something I don’t, please tell me, as I’m just looking into this. But otherwise I think you should change the post, as it contains accusations that are unsupported by the known facts. These accusations support the notion that Obama “has palled around with [former] terrorists”, though absent the murder charges, the “terrorist” charge is much weakened.
PS There have been extreme accusations against the WU from at least one of their former FBI infiltrators, alleging that they planned the murder of millions, given a) the inconsistency of this with the documented behavior of WU, b) the fact that infiltrators are professional misrepresenters, c) the political hot potato that the investigation had become because of the Cointepro involvement that led to the dismissal of the case against WU (for the things they did do, not the murder), and d) the severe disconnect between this and the WU’s actual capabilities, I would consider such statements mere allegations, though they may involve the taking of stoned shit talking too seriously as well.
I guess it is obligatory (though it shouldn’t be) to state that I do not sympathize with what the Weathermen did. But that is no excuse for abusing the truth.
My point was only that you made a distinction between Ayers vs Gandhi and Mandela. But Mandela belongs in a category together with Ayers and separate from Gandhi. That is all.
I don’t think your last comment stands up as it equates refusing to condemn murder with committing murder. Lots of people romanticize Jesse James; perhaps they are foolish, but they are not murderers. Although, as I said elsewhere in this thread, the case that Ayers is, in fact, a murderer seems extremely weak, and I think the “terrorist” charge should be challenged on this basis. The problem is that it is against the rules of “seriousness” to defend the likes of WU against any charge, regardless of the facts.
Dare I say it? Palin’s palin’ with terrorists?